YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 What do folks think of Feingold's arguement and substance of his resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 What do folks think of Feingold's arguement and substance of his resolution? 627535[/snapback] Link to a transcript? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Link to a transcript? 627587[/snapback] Never mind, I found it. Here's what I think: To approve the President’s actions now, without demanding a full inquiry into this program, a detailed explanation for why the President authorized it, and accountability for his illegal actions, would be irresponsible. Direct quote from Feingold's statement. Replace "approve" with "censure", and that's what I think. I'll bet Feingold not only disagrees with me, but wouldn't even see the hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Never mind, I found it. Here's what I think:Direct quote from Feingold's statement. Replace "approve" with "censure", and that's what I think. I'll bet Feingold not only disagrees with me, but wouldn't even see the hypocrisy. 627595[/snapback] CTW, I figured that, seen your arguement before on this subject, interesting though, the President through its AG is arguing that the war resolution gives him the authority. Specter wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Feingold, said he did not know given the lack of info about the program the WH has given the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 What do folks think of Feingold's arguement and substance of his resolution? 627535[/snapback] Apparently, Feingold's Democratic colleagues don't think too much of it. Who says no man is an island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Apparently, Feingold's Democratic colleagues don't think too much of it. Who says no man is an island? 627620[/snapback] What a Southern cracker like Sessions, please...but I can understand the other sides uncomfortability with it, puts the GOP in a tough position between defending the Constitution and justifying the war in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Never mind, I found it. Here's what I think:Direct quote from Feingold's statement. Replace "approve" with "censure", and that's what I think. I'll bet Feingold not only disagrees with me, but wouldn't even see the hypocrisy. 627595[/snapback] Try looking at this another way CTM. There isn't going to be an investigation or detailed explanation. However, if the censure resolution comes to a vote, there will be those who will argue that they can't reach a conclusion without an investigation so they can't possibly vote. Of course, those same people will be the ones who prevented an investigation in the first place. This puts them on the hot spot. If you think that based on what you know, it is illegal, then vote for censure. If you think that based on what you know, you can't make up your mind, then abstain after a speech about how you can't make up your mind due to the lack of an investigation you blocked. If you think that based on what you know, it is legal, then vote against censure. There, everyone goes on the record, one they can't avoid in November. No more of this "I am deeply troubled..." or "I am gravely concerned..." bullshite. Their constituents will know where they stand and vote accordingly. Really, we talk a lot around here about politicians talking out both sides, never saying what they mean or mean what they are saying. Why not support a tactic to try and force them to drop the bs and say where they stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Good. Get them all on the record, especially the Dems who are up for re-election. This means you, Joe Lieberman...MSNBC But Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., voiced some misgivings and hinted that he’d vote no on the Feingold resolution. “Frankly I’d prefer to spend our time on figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law…. I disagree with the Bush administration’s legal judgment on this one…. But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.” So, Joe, you'd rather coordinate the ransacking of the constitution with this administration, rather than actually take them to task for breaking the law? There's already a "critically important program" in place to help fight terrorism...it's called FISA. You know, the one the Bush administration didn't feel was good enough and decided to maneuver around without telling anyone...the law that they admitted they ignored. Get them on the record now, during the primaries. Keep it in the headlines. Vote the enablers out of office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 There, everyone goes on the record, one they can't avoid in November. No more of this "I am deeply troubled..." or "I am gravely concerned..." bullshite. Their constituents will know where they stand and vote accordingly. 627673[/snapback] Why do you think they're avoiding it like the plague? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 More mastrubation material for the dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Good. Get them all on the record, especially the Dems who are up for re-election. This means you, Joe Lieberman... 627864[/snapback] Johnny, Lieberman and Dodd are the Connecticut senators until they choose not to run again or their hearts stop beating. And they know it. There are no consequences in whether they, or about 80 percent of the rest of both houses of Congress, support this or that legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Has anyone come up with a 2006 definition of what "war" is? Maybe a small point, but since that is where a lot hinges, maybe it should be qualified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Has anyone come up with a 2006 definition of what "war" is? Maybe a small point, but since that is where a lot hinges, maybe it should be qualified. 627982[/snapback] Hell no. Haven't you been listening to me B word the past three years that it's not even being discussed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 But Sen. Joe Lieberman, D- Conn., voiced some misgivings and hinted that he’d vote no on the Feingold resolution. “Frankly I’d prefer to spend our time on figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law…. I disagree with the Bush administration’s legal judgment on this one…. But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.” That's actually one of the more sensible things I've heard out of anyone yet. I'm guessing here, but I suspect that there are some technological things going on that make the law as it stands difficult to comply with. What is wrong with adjusting the laws to fit the capabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 That's actually one of the more sensible things I've heard out of anyone yet. I'm guessing here, but I suspect that there are some technological things going on that make the law as it stands difficult to comply with. What is wrong with adjusting the laws to fit the capabilities? 628030[/snapback] Nice try, they have modified the damn thing 6 times, at least 3 or 4 since Bush has been in office and he still can't comply with it. Hey, Dems are not the ones who have been rewriting the thing. Goes back to the competence thing. You'd think they either have it right by now or he would comply, guess he just doesn't like anyone saying he has to follow rules he didn't arbitrarily make up or is it just a P.R. game to those guys. Probably the later, they don't really care about the law unless Dems violate it. Outcome based logic, which is how we got involved in Iraq in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Good. Get them all on the record, especially the Dems who are up for re-election. This means you, Joe Lieberman...MSNBC So, Joe, you'd rather coordinate the ransacking of the constitution with this administration, rather than actually take them to task for breaking the law? There's already a "critically important program" in place to help fight terrorism...it's called FISA. You know, the one the Bush administration didn't feel was good enough and decided to maneuver around without telling anyone...the law that they admitted they ignored. Get them on the record now, during the primaries. Keep it in the headlines. Vote the enablers out of office. 627864[/snapback] For the umpteenth time, the law is not broken if said law doesn't apply to the case. In yet another one of my trite examples, you can't ticket someone for breaking the city's 30 MPH speed limit, when they're on the highway going 55MPH (while still in the city) If you insist on pushing FISA in this case then the admin will simply take this to SCOTUS, which very much likely rule that FISA is unconstitutional. That's the reason Dems aren't pushing this too hard, because if they do, FISA may get thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 For the umpteenth time, the law is not broken if said law doesn't apply to the case. In yet another one of my trite examples, you can't ticket someone for breaking the city's 30 MPH speed limit, when they're on the highway going 55MPH (while still in the city) If you insist on pushing FISA in this case then the admin will simply take this to SCOTUS, which very much likely rule that FISA is unconstitutional. That's the reason Dems aren't pushing this too hard, because if they do, FISA may get thrown out. 628063[/snapback] Explain to me how FISA is unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Explain to me how FISA is unconstitutional? 628065[/snapback] You can read this, (good discussion in the entire thread), or go to my site and research. People keep forgetting that even the Carter White House was arguing vociferously that FISA doesn't take away executive powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 CTW, I figured that, seen your arguement before on this subject, interesting though, the President through its AG is arguing that the war resolution gives him the authority. Specter wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with Feingold, said he did not know given the lack of info about the program the WH has given the Senate. 627605[/snapback] Every president since FISA was passed has argued that the executive can operate outside the restrictions of FISA (and therefore WAY outside the 4th Amendment) under certain conditions. One of the unique things about this situation is that aside from the various precedental arguments raised by previous administrations, one of the conditions is actually an act of Congress - namely, the war resolution. And like I've said, I don't agree with it...but it sure as hell isn't an invalid legal argument. Of course...as GG's pointed out, FISA likely wouldn't stand up to a constitutional test. So Congress is bitching about the president unconstitutionally violating an unconstitutional law that they arguably gave him authority to violate. Makes one wonder if the entire US government shouldn't just be declared unconstitutional at this point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 You can read this, (good discussion in the entire thread), or go to my site and research. People keep forgetting that even the Carter White House was arguing vociferously that FISA doesn't take away executive powers. 628095[/snapback] Hmm, so that begs the question, does the term agent refer to an AQ contact that happens to be a U.S. citizen under that previous Scotus ruling. I do know that part of the McCarthy and Watergate reforms tried to get at the idea of political witch hunts v. legitimate investigations. Problem is, I don't think anyone trusts the current admin to differentiate and are increasingly getting intolerant of the just trust us mantra. Would that justify them listening in as rumored, to then Presidential candidate John Kerrey phone calls while overseas? Stay tuned, this is still unraveling and I think may expose the White House to more scandal. Even the appearance of continued inproprieties hurt them on the trust issue. Thanks, I plan to read the CRS report and I read your comments. Still not sure how FISA even as ruled by SCOTUS justifies WH actions. I still suspect they are hiding behind the executive priviledge exception as a way to avoid exposing illegal domestic surveillance. If it goes to court and there is any kind of discovery it will prove embarrassing. Sooner or later some techno geek is going find a way to trace their activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts